Slashdot Mirror
Bilski Patent Case Appealed To Supreme Court
An anonymous reader writes "The landmark ruling of a few months ago that limited patents to inventions which include a machine or which transform physical matter has been appealed up to the Supreme Court. 'On the one side of this controversy... are those... who argue that patents must be available to encourage innovation in devising new ways to conduct business in the global information-based economy, including encouragement for new ways of digitizing business methods. On the other side are consumer advocacy groups and free-market devotees who worry that patent monopolies could tie up methods of creative thought processes, including teaching, judging, creative writing, making medical judgments, or picking juries (some current, real examples of claims).' The Bilski decision has already had an impact on potential software and biotech patents, in addition to the obvious limitations on business method patents. The petition (PDF) argues that the 'machine-or-transformation' test conflicts with the broad language of the patent statute and with congressional intent. It's entirely within the Supreme Court's discretion to take the case or not, but for now it looks like the issue is far from decided."
is a use or lose clause.
Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
My bullshit detector just exploded.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If the Supreme Court doesn't accept it, I suppose we have a chance to bring yet another case and try for more limitation of software patenting.
What really bothers me is that our only viable path to do this right now is the courts. We've not been able to establish a legislative campaign.
Bruce Perens.
There are no ways in which software patents can help anyone but patent lawyers. Since American patents are only binding in America, they put domestic companies at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world. Anyone can open an American office and start filing patents to be used against us, but good luck to an American company that wants to file patents in China to protect their claims.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Correction: you want SCOTUS to uphold the Bilski ruling.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Software patents are extremely important to certain businesses, most of all the telecoms industry, which manages to keep prices rising in an area where their half-life should be 12-18 months.
If there were no software patents, it would be much harder to maintain the telecoms cartels, the high prices, and the jobs and profits they generate. So for many people, software patents are very, very useful.
Of course the overall effect is to slow down progress in communications, keep costs artificially high, penalize emerging industries, and punish the competitiveness of regions like the USA and Europe, which allow the cartels to continue.
However, the times are changing and I've written about why the growing power of the Internet as a non-political force in politics will cause the end of software patents.
It's worth noting that software patents will also be reviewed in Europe by the European Patent Office's Extended Board of Appeal (EBA), the closest thing we have to SCOTUS with respect to patents in Europe. Sure, the EPO is a fiefdom of the patent industry and EBA its chief priesthood, but reexamining the cosy arrangements that allowed software patents to exist so far is very significant.
I think we are seeing the swing of the pendulum back towards sanity and the understanding that when it comes to the digital economy, any barrier to trade and competition - and the essence of a patent is to prevent competition - is harmful.
My blog
People seldom consider the implications of abolishing software patents.
Sure, there are a lot of good arguments against granting artificial monopolies on computer software--and many of them ARE good arguments. However, categorically denying patent protection to software creates some logical difficulties.
Most computer aficionados are familiar with the idea that software and hardware are logically equivalent. We CAN build specialized hardware to do what we would have our software do.
It would seem a bit anomalous, therefore, to allow a patent on specialized hardware that embodies precisely the same inventive character as its patent ineligible software counterpart.
So, in my opinion, the real issue we are seeking to resolve here is more subtle and obscure than we are admitting. Certainly, affording computer software a unique status as patent ineligible subject matter is not the most complete solution.
I think that's what the court was getting at in Bilski. They were searching for some kind of logical test rather than an unexplainable, static, and inflexible prohibition on a certain class of invention.
I'm not saying the court was right--I'm trying to shed a little more light on the playing field.
The answers below are how standard patent rulings would take place, not my decision or want.
1. What if you 'invented' it by looking at a creature with really great night vision, and then copy and pasted it over?
Regardless. If you made it, its an invention. If you found it, a discovery. Both are patentable.
2. What if someone was born with really great night vision, and you just copy and pasted it from them?
Yep. Look at the Ashkenazi Jew lady who had expressions of breast cancer.. Now every Ashkenazi Jew who takes a BRCA-1 test pays a royalty. Non-Jews dont.
3. What if someone was born with really great night vision AFTER you patented it -- are they in violation of your patent?
Most likely. And the worst case: Patent companies have unproportionately large legal bases to enact lawsuits towards. If you are a peon, you will lose, either by 20+ year trial, or directly. Note that 17 years is length of patent.
4. What if the children of the people you modified with night vision inherit the gene? Do they owe royalties?
There was probably a contract that included offspring in the original document. They will likely owe royalties. If they do not pay, the company will probably try a copyright suit along with a patent suit, because you knowingly infringed on copyright. Since it's knowingly, fees are upwards 35000$-250000$. Thank the copyright system.
This "infrastructure is expensive" argument is 20 years out of date. Newsflash: no-one puts down cables any more unless they're for IP. There are many, many ways to build cheap and extremely competitive telecoms networks that would end the cartels overnight. They don't mostly happen because patents block innovation wherever it is a threat. I remind you that telecoms has become a software industry, top to bottom, and every "invention" of that industry is heavily protected by software patents.
Spectrum "regulation" are just the side effect of a powerful cartel that has friends in government - a good way to raise the cost to unbearable levels for newcomers and tax the consumer. Again, it's patents that prevent more efficient use of spectrum and those "expensive" lines you talk about.
It is all about keeping out competitors that would disrupt the cozy price-fixed market.
Try to start a VoIP telecoms provider, and see what happens. Read about Vonage, if you forget your recent history. Now tell me again, seriously, that telecoms cartels have "nothing to do with patents".
Patents are the core of the telecoms stack and the reason your mobile phone bill rises year on year.
Yes, to truly re-create competition in the telecoms industry, we need a powerful competition authority, and we need much better policies for spectrum use, but most of all, we need the end of software patents.
My blog
The problem with Vonage - and all current VOIP implementations - is they fail the basic requirements that the wired telecom providers are required to support. Things like 48 hours without electric power. 911 that actually works with emergency services. And literally a hundred other requirements, all things that are really good for people that need basic voice connectivity.
Sure, VOIP implementations are cheap. But in comparison to what? I can use Yahoo Messenger for free. How is Vonage cheaper than that? Neither Vonage or Yahoo are paying for the infrastructure to connect me to the network. The $30-a-month POTS service is doing exactly that. What would Vonage charge if they had to pay to supply their customers with network connectivity?
Sorry, but this has a lot more to do with tariffs and regulations than patents. Sadly, it takes some serious wakeup calls before people understand the difference between the POTS network in the US and "phone service" supplied by the likes of Vonage. A 24 hour power outage might be a good start. Having a 2 year old dial 911 and not be able to recite the address might be another.